It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AnimositisominA
Does this really need another thread man? I know what thread you are talking about and you can go there to see how I feel about it.
Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Where you will get a response from me is when you denigrate Americans who are in harms way at the present or have given their live in past wars. I lost family members in the Pacific Theatre and for them to be called cowards and what not, while they were giving up their lives in defense of countries not their own is totally shameful behavior. I am talking about American service men here not their Generals or Political leaders. Same is true for the Vietnam Veterans who have been slandered in these bash America threads. I feel the South Vietnamese people were worth fighting for regardless of what politics were involved. I have an adopted sister who is from South Vietnam, so my view is a bit different I would assume.
I have never taken away credit from any of our Allies in war, I personally have the utmost respect for the Servicemen of all the Commonwealth Nations.
The average American does not control what war movies hollywood produces, or what some General or Politician says, and I think anyone one visiting from Commonwealth countries would actually be hard pressed to find average Americans who would say anything derogatory about them.
Blamey had issues with MacArthur, Patton had issues with Montgomery, these issues were 60 years past, the important thing was the war was won with great sacrifice by all allied countries , and each allied country will have a slightly different take on events.
My problem with last night thread is that American Servicemen we being accused of starting a brawl in Australia and being gang-bangers and thugs, and even with updates on the situation with it being shown that the people involved in this incident were not Americans at all but apparently African immigrants to Australia, the America bashing in that thread continiued for another 8 pages.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Not exactly what I was expecting....
but, in my arrogance and omniscience, I'll go ahead and make it what I want it to be...
As far as the term "Deny Ignorance", from what I've seen, the big problem is that instead of saying "No, this ignorance can go no further", there is a BIG group that is "just downright ignorant but deny that they are".
It is, indeed, a description of the term, but not quite what I think the site had in mind.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Not exactly what I was expecting....
but, in my arrogance and omniscience, I'll go ahead and make it what I want it to be...
As far as the term "Deny Ignorance", from what I've seen, the big problem is that instead of saying "No, this ignorance can go no further", there is a BIG group that is "just downright ignorant but deny that they are".
It is, indeed, a description of the term, but not quite what I think the site had in mind.
It still doesn't deny the fact that many American ATS members are under-educated and choose to reply with nonsense, than to research the topic at hand.
Good day to you
Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
reply to post by daaskapital
Couple of things you have to look at about the Pacific Theatre in WW 2
Do you think Australia would have wanted to fight the Japanese alone, say for example there was no Pearl Harbor attack and America did not enter the war?
The US Marines alone suffered more combat deaths in the Pacific Theatre than the Australian armed forces did for the entire war in the Pacific theatre. Australia lost more folks in North Africa and Europe than they did in the Pacific.
The US Army suffered more combat deaths on Okinawa alone than than the Australian armed forces did for the entire war in the Pacific Theatre.
Those are just cold hard facts its not a knock on Australia.
Also it comes down to production of war material America produced 141 Aircraft Carriers during the war, Over half all Aircraft on both sides produced during the war were made by America, and almost half of all vehicles were made by America. Not a bad showing for a country accused of being late.
Fact is the Allies cannot win without the American production, even the Soviets loose, because American Lend lease is feeding them, clothing them, and supplying nearly all their raw materials for tanks and planes, not to mention without American trucks and jeeps the Russian Army walks to Berlin.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Since you had to single me out I;m here,
That's what you wanted, yes?
You know you're quite right:
I should have never bothered reading Churchill's history of the Second World War.
Filling my head with anti-Australian propaganda.
Neither of you could refute my points so you whine about me bashing Australia.
By all means, post the quotes where I "bashed" Australia so everyone can see what you're ranting about.
If you can't then maybe the problem is with you, not others.
Australia didn't seem to mind when America joined the British empire fighting WW1.
If the US hadn't joined "your war" in 1941 you'd be speaking Japanese now.
Seems to me we joined the wars of the Crown lands long before Australia joined our wars.
No worries though, I have the utmost respect for Australian soldiers. Some of the scrappiest fighters to ever see combat. Fighting in a Mickey D's though - you know that's US territory, right?
Oh look, a moderator engaging in "Anti-Australian" discussions...
Don't start with that bull#...please. Australia was more than capable of defending itself, especially if an invasion were to occur. Hell, we were the first force to defeat Japan in a major battle, the first force to repel the Nazis on land. FFS, give credit where it is due! We had already won the battle for Australia by the time the US came parading down here on their high horse.
Scrappiest? What do you mean? The disorganised term, or the determined term? if it is the former you can get lost. Australia has, for the most part been a professional force for many, many years, more so than what can be said about the US Military, especially in it's current state (with the pissing on dead bodies, and Quran burnings). If your post was serious (disregarding the last part) then i have lost respect for you, both, as a member of ATS and as a moderator. You should be displaying the upsides to ATS, not reveling in your arrogance and bias against other countries/forces.
It's not my fault Australia had no navy left to defend against Japan from attacking in 1942.
(blame Churchill for using them all up on Greece and North Africa)
Or maybe the Japanese didn't think there was anything worth taking there.
Mr. Sato indicated that there was a Japanese Invasion Force of many troop transports and warships heading south from Japan to make a beach landing half way between Townsville and Brisbane. Mr. Sato claimed that the air raids on Darwin, which had started on 19 February 1942, were "a feint to destroy shipping and planes".
Mr. Sato indicated that the Japanese Navy was responsible for the implementation of plans to invade and occupy Australia. He indicated that he was always at the nerve centre of the Japanese Navy.
Mr Sato had stated that the Japanese had realised that it would have been too difficult to move a large force south from Darwin and had then decided to attack the Queensland coast midway between Townsville and Brisbane. He indicated that communications were good and the population was sparse in that area of Queensland.
The city of Brisbane was reportedly the first objective of this so-called Invasion Plan of Australia. It was believed that Brisbane could be taken quite readily with a minimum of cost and resistance.
Sydney was the next objective and was to be attacked by land and amphibious forces. They then planned to move on to Melbourne, but by this time, they anticipated that Australia would have surrendered.
Things changed when orders were issued for the Japanese forces to take Milne Bay and Port Moresby. The Japanese were not willing to risk another operation in Australian while their supply lines were in peril. Again, according to Mr. Sato, the Japanese campaign in New Guinea used up all the forces originally intended for the invasion of Australia. Mr. Sato indicated that the Japanese had initially thought the Australian forces would be a pushover in New Guinea. This they abruptly found not to be the case.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Here we go. Round up for another one of daaskapital's anti-American threads
I will put it in simple terms so the Americans on ATS will understand:
Most of you are ignorant to other countries, world events, and (this is a big one) history!
]